Law Questions and Answers
What does initial hearing aim when going to court?
i go to court for inital audible range on habitual substance perpetrator. what do i expect?Answers: just that, initial, one the first..and so all can go and get a piece of the legal pie, man money, expect at least 3 continuances...so the referee, lawyer and state seize their cut.
expect a plea bargain, thats why so my liberal law lords make me sick...keep the money going..no one does unadulterated time in America, not even partially. Good luck..and stay clean!
It's approaching an arraignment. They apprise you of the charge.
** Note: This is a general discussion of the subject business of your question and not endorsed advice. Local law or your particular situation may transform the general rules. For a specific answer to your press you should consult legal counsel near whom you can discuss all the facts of your shield. **
In New York State what is the LAW regarding?
property after a spouse pass and there is NO official will or children? Dosent the property go the the SURVIVING spouse?Answers: Generally, singular property that goes through the probate process is subject to distribution lower than "intestate" (no will) rules.
However, there are several types of property that don't walk through the probate process and would likely not be subject to those rules. For example, a reciprocated checking account, go insurance benefits and some real estate might be outside the probate process.
I suggest that you check out the contact below, which has like mad of links to legal information for NY, including probate issues. There are also links to organization that offer free guidance and referrals, and you might want to christen to see if you can talk to an attorney or other counsel.
Yes, of course. Now if it's a second wife, probably the first wife could make an issue of it, depending.
Can you defend Sharia?
You are assigned as Sharia's (Sharia Law) PR soul. Make the most convincing statement.Tons of oil money is your reward & incentive!
Answers: Dear we don't answer question in Yahoo for reward. So please excuse us on that count. As regard your question tolerate me tell you that Shariah is subordinate to the injunctions of Koran and practices of Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him. Where as the Koranic Injunctions are mandatory shariah decree is not. Shariah in reality emerged as opinion of the jurists of Islam like Imam Abu Hanifa Imam Hambal etc. The follower of respectively school voluntary bind themselves to take in the shariah doctrines/rules as propounded by the Jurist. For instance a follower of Maliki Fiqh would say that I bind myself to the Maliki fiqh as I find it more appropriate than of Hanfi. Correspondingly the courts also provide effect to the will of the follower and decide his grip according to the fiqh he follows. The shariah laws as propounded by the jurists if are not surrounded by consonance with the Koran and Sunnah are cancelled.
From Wikipedia: Sharia (Arabic: transliteration: Sarī`ah) is the body of Islamic religious law. The residence means "way" or "side of the road to the water source"; it is the legally recognized framework within which the public and some private aspects of vivacity are regulated for those living in a lawful system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence and for Muslims living outside the domain. Sharia deal with lots aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, bank, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.
There is no strictly static codified set of law of sharia. Sharia is more of a system of devising laws, base on the Qur'an (the religious text of Islam), hadith (sayings and doings of Muhammad), (sayings and doings of the untimely followers of Muhammad), ijma (consensus), qiyas (analogy) and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.
Before the 19th century, legal opinion was considered the domain of the traditional official schools of thought. Most Sunni Muslims follow Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki or Shafii, while most Shia Muslims follow Twelvers (Hallaq 1997, Brown 1996, Aslan 2006).
cut and pasters!!! eeewww.
But following the statute is fine as lond as you do not violate anyone elses civil liberties...or personal space!
Possibly - contained by Shariastan
Is there a regulation that says you must enjoy TV licence:-?
If so who made this law, if the elected representatives is it then not a excise on TV's, should it then not be shared to adjectives program suppliers. What happens something like people wuo download programs to their computer are these afterwards classed as TV receivers, where on earth is the detector van, dont see that anymore?Answers: Just btw here's an interesting story about someone who go to court over it. Niall Warry of the UKIP and British Democracy Party went to court surrounded by Cheltenham earlier this year for refuse to pay his licence excise because of what he said was the 'political bias' of the BBC, predominantly over the EU which the UKIP opposes UK devotion of.
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/british-...
in the TV you want a license to receive broadcasts. and in former times that used to mean radios too.
The license funds the BBC, but it is controleld by the parliament.
I think it is a levy on tv ownership .
there is a grey nouns around downloaded videos, but the tenet generally recognises a tv as something that can receive tv signals, so it includes set top boxes and video.
Stupid if you ask me cos i pay sky a fortune respectively month.
Hi,yes the government enforced the TV rates it goe's to BBC.
For years people own tried to get rid of the excise & make BBC
place advert.
there is a directive, and you do have to enjoy a licence even if you dont have a tv, they will still ask you for and expect you to hold a licence. Blind people own been taken to court over not have a licence, mad and excessive but true.
I dont believe in the van point, I think its freshly for show. But I do believe they have everyones name and addresses via electoral role and will run through it sending letters if the entity is not regestered for having a licence.
To be complete, you must by decree have a TV licence if you own a TV or any device talented of receiving TV programmes (like a TV Tuner attached to a PC). If you don't hold any TV you don't need a licence; the licence authorities will still try to build you have one as they cannot believe that anyone does not own a TV set! As you say aloud, it is a minefield, but if TV programmes on PCs do not come from a broadcaster, then it is not a TV programme, like as a DVD/Video is not a TV programme. The detector vans still exist but are not really used as they just bill every household assuming that every household as a TV.
The ruling has be in existence for decades in a minute
Hello. TV licences (and radio licence in the past) are licence to have a TV contained by your home.All the money raised go to the BBC and, sadly, Channel 4 as ably! Both are public broadcasters with C4 have paid advert to subsidise the licence fee.The BBC as you would expect doesn't have rewarded adverts on any TV or radio.
So far as I recall, the TV licence be introduced in the 1930s when the BBC get its charter.At that stage,there be no commercial tv which only come along in 1955! Of course in our time, tv can be watched on computers which, dreadfully, are classified as tv screens for licencing purposes when in attendance is an internet connection!
Downloading and/or record 'off-air' has other been unlawful no matter what. The authorities usually turn a blind eye to individual copying as in that is no benefit in prosecuting.
In the annals of history, if a TV set could be stopped from viewing adjectives BBC programmes, it could be argued as to what you're paying a licence fee to the BBC for if you can't receive their programmes! It wasn't that several years ago that the rules were also changed to stop hotels resembling the London Hilton having only one licence for hundreds of tv sets in their rooms. Now respectively tv has to own a licence irrespective of how many bedrooms in that are!
In my 53 years, I never once saw a detector van in London. I believe they be an invention of the BBC and licencing authority to scare, cajole and frighten those into getting a licence. Yes, there be FAKE vans roaming the country looking as though they were REAL vans!
Its a shame the parliament can't lose all the documents for this as well! I'd believe it'll be fun trying to re-register EVERYONE back!
Alan L.
You probably reward about one and the same money to ITV every year hidden contained by the cost of things you buy in the shops.
If it's advertise on TV or you buy it from a shop that advertises on TVor you dance to the shop in a sports car that is advertise on TV then contained by the end you retribution for it. At least the BBC doesnt put on those annoying Jamie Oliver advert.
It is the law that you obligation a licence to operate a television addressee.
This is NOT a tax on televsions, we enjoy VAT for that. It was initiated as a 'subscription' to the BBC put money on in the days when they be the only source of programmes and have to be funded somehow.
Now that there are lots of different sources for the programmes you may never requirement to tune into the BBC. However, they still provide radio and internet services and make a huge number of programmes for other ancestors to transmit.
The alternative to the licence fee would be more advertisments. Personally, I'm sick to the rear legs teeth of greedy broadcasters who charge a subscription (Sky, Virgin) and then pepper their programmes near about 25% (by time) of advert.
Compared to the alternatives, the BBC licence fee is excellent meaning for money.
In fairness to clarity and the English language, calling it a toll is sloppy.
There is huge difference between a tax (goes to the system for general spending and cannot be avoided as long as you live and die contained by the country),
and a licence ( a permit to operate the equipment and superfluous if you choose not to own the set).
They waste so much time and postage costs unnecessarily chasing ancestors. I own 3 properties, a main residence (with a TV licence), another house near a tenant (with a TV licence), and a second home (no TV set). The second house was clean for a while after the occupant died, and in that was no TV in attendance. The current tenant (my daughter) has a licence, but they still bombard us beside postal and telephone licence demands on the closing two properties. I have informed them that a licence is held on one, and nearby is no TV at the other several times, but every month to 6 weeks, along comes another reminder. On the second home I get two reminders, they enjoy an additional, slightly incorrect, address.
I embargo to incur regular postal or telephone expenses to put in the picture them that the position is unchanged. Have also have recorded nativity reminders, which I now proscribe to accept. Am waiting to see what they will do subsequent. They have spent a fortune, I touch harrassed. Although middle aged, I am not easily intimidated, but I can become conscious someone elderly buying a licence just to shut them up. The tone of the reminders can merely be described as hectoring. Had one drop by several years ago from one of their inspectors (?, detector vans), but wasn't home. They never came stern.
Check out
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukp...
and
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukp...
It is against the law not to enjoy a tv licence if caught you could get up to lb1000 fine.
Has anyone heard of this email scam?
Starts out beside a Rev. ______, who wants to purchase something (in this travel case 12 storm doors). After a few emails, he confirms we had the better price & requirements to send pay via credit card. After processing of card #, Rev. contacts buisness with shipping address. Wants us to contact shipping company beside charges then convey payment via his credit card #. Has anyone hear of this type of scam.Answers: Yep, it is definitely a scam. They reason because they claim to be a man of the cloth, you will believe them. Stay away!!!
Yes, it's a scam and I get them adjectives the time. If you demand currency when item is picked up they will leave you alone.
angelic luck
Are we killing terrorists?
or are we terrorizing? Personally, I guess that if I was asked to shoot someone who be even POSSIBLY innocent, I would refuse no business the cost to myself. (ofcourse I am a pacifist who could never shoot anyone) Not that I am judge these men for following orders. You do what you can, right?Now.create in your mind this. That is your hometown. That old female is YOUR grandma. That taxi driver, be your husband, or best friend, or brother, or son. Imagine that people carrying ak47's bust into your home, in need warning, pointing their terminal weapons at you and yell at you in a foreign words. You can't understand them, you enjoy done nothing wrong, your country, you state, your city are man invaded by these people who seem to be intent on stealing your nations inherent resources, and telling YOU who should be within charge of your gov't.
What would you think?
Answers: Like most folks, I'd give the invaders every indication of being friendly and cooperative while I worked on ways to drive them out and take out them.
You forgot to throw in assorted religious sects using the power vacuum to start bloodshed each other contained by order to snatch power or pay pay for old vendetta. Otherwise, good thought provoking cross-examine.
not enough
too unpromising they won't just vein up for us instead of hiding among all those civilians
or do u focus we should do as they do and just start bombing bazaar places
it's a tough question. it is not easy to tell them apart.. the innocent and the ones who enjoy been raise on thinking America and Americans= the devil- so kill them and you go and get 70 virgins or whatever. Some innocent those have be screwed but I will tell you this.. within are only a handful of individuals who REALLY know what is going on and why we are there. Not proverb I FULLY trust the government.. but something needed to be done to terrorists if they be going to kill Americans here or in that. I am NOT agreeing with the time of war because I really don't know enough something like it.. and I don't think I ever will even if I scrutinize the world news every year. I do think too plentiful Americans are dying and not enough getting done- that's for sure. It is too behind schedule to just sign out.. but SOMETHING needs to be done.
Their own general public are doing it to themselves. I feel doomed to failure for them.. but it's their leaders' faults for self idiots and America killers surrounded by he beginning.
this is interesting and a put somebody through the mill that requires much thought.
i really don't think that i can answer this any other agency than by saying I agree.
Yes, we are massacre about one terrorist for every ten U.S. military member that we lose in Iraq.
And
Yes we are terrorizing, bloodshed thousands of innocent civilians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGp1zi7-4... The scenario that Brandon said was proven to be untrue... ummmm that be videotaped... check it out jackass.
Are you for or Against ...?
Are you for or against the death cost ?????Answers: I'm for it; save our import tax dollars and get rid of the pond rabble. All it takes is one bullet.
I also believe that prison should suck: It should be hot contained by the summer, cold in the winter, and enjoy no roof...just 50 ft soaring walls; this way, when it rain, they get raining. There should be no television, and no bulk rooms (I have to bust my butt to payment for my cable and my gym membership, so why should these animals receive it for free?).
This is what should happen to child molesters, murderers and rapists. Let them rot.
For.
There are some crimes so heinous that it is the ONLY simply penalty. (pedophiles, rapists, only just to name a couple)
I'm for.
Punishment should fit the crime, Serial Killers, and child rapists and murderers should markedly get it.
I'm not sure, I be determined the US has the destruction penalty and however has one of the world's great crime rates. And once you kill someone if it turns out they be innocent there's not much you can do, the death cost was abolish in the UK after unsullied evidence and several people turned out to be innocent after self put to death. but at like peas in a pod time it's the tax payers who rate to keep criminals beneath a roof with 3 meal a day and surrounded by some prisons the opportunity to get an training!
If I knew for sure that the destruction penalty would particularly lower the rate of crime I would say yes, but i don't see that taking place, so yes again I'm not sure.
Actually that is not a black and white request for information to me. I believe that in reliable cases it is justified but surrounded by most cases it is not. Example: A person murders 2 or more , correct. A person kill in a fit of intensity, not justified. I don't believed that the destruction penalty is fit for any crime that does not involve the death of others.
for
if they did a crime that be either continuous or that took lives than yes as you would expect that person shouldn't be alive plus its our rates dollars paying for them to rot in their cell.
i am against society say that they should be punished for things such as kiling but we turn around and do like peas in a pod thing to them i parsimonious seriously dont you think they would be more miserable stuck surrounded by a jail cell consequently being put out of near misery? i
I'm against it.
As much as I like the theory of an eye for an eye, at the end of the time I don't believe justice should sink as low as the murderers it convicts. Nobody should enjoy the right to take the go of a person who's already eliminate as a threat.
So far, there have been no proof that have a death cost actually lowers the murder rates within any given state.
So as long as we are able and feeling like to give a sentence of existence in prison WITHOUT any possibility of parole, I'm morally Okay beside it.
against,
but only because not a soul has made a righteous enough arguement FOR it, the arguements AGAINST it are not much better but when surrounded by doubt (as I suppose I am) I think I will choose to not waste.
You don't need the hangman to cure rapists; what is agreed colloquially as "the two bricks treatment" would suffice.
It might also deter paedophiles.
FOR!
There's a lot of murderers out nearby that deserve no less.
You don't own to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a hideous punishment to ask if the death cost prevents or even reduces crime and to presume about the risks of executing innocent ancestors. Your question is much too vital to settle without thinking something like these.
125 people on destruction rows have be released with proof that they be wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in smaller quantity than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent associates.
The death cost doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death cost to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death cost is neither. Homicide rates are higher surrounded by states and regions that have it than surrounded by those that don’t.
We have a worthy alternative. Life without parole is very soon on the books surrounded by 48 states. It means what it say. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life in need parole is less expensive than the loss penalty.
The disappearance penalty costs much more than duration in prison, mostly because of the allowed process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.
The departure penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants next to the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to associates with money. When is the end time a wealthy human being was on annihilation row, let alone executed?
The destruction penalty doesn't necessarily aid families of murder victims. Murder casualty family member across the country argue that the drawn-out death cost process is painful for them and that go without parole is an appropriate alternative.
Problems next to speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from annihilation row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent soul.
How do you feel just about a loser pays court system?
If the loser had to money for all court fees wouldn't that cut down on seriously of the frivoulous court cases?Answers: Sounds great in good opinion to frivilous lawsuits. Though I need to ponder the thought more I enjoy this vague theory that there could be a problem.
Say a creature has a legal beef w. a large corporation. The corporation say you can try to sue us for the $100,000 but. if you do we are going to hire a huge panel of lawyers that bill at $1000 an hour plus their expenses which include wages compensated to a huge group of junior lawyers and paralegals at their firm. So you can sue but if you lose you will owe us $4.5 million.
So it seem to me that would bully even people who have a case into dropping it. The little guy would not bring his day surrounded by court.
I think it's idyllic.
Like with paternity issues, if a mother accuse someone of being the father, and they are not, she pays, if they are, he pays. (unless they both agree to split the costs since the results are issued.)
Could I really be in trouble?
I lived near an abusive boyfriend for 5 years and when I finally dumped him he started to date a girl I worked next to, we're not friends just work at duplicate place. I wanted to put on alert her about him but everyone told me not to that she wouldn't believe me. So I kept my mouth shut, he throb the crap out of her and she just spent 5 weeks contained by the hospital. Now I hear from a friend that she maybe suing me for negligence, because I know he was harmful and I didn't tell her. Does she own a case?Answers: I seriously doubt that she could build a valise against you. If you had ratted him out to her, he might enjoy sued you for slander. And even if you had told her, do you focus she really would have believed you??
Did you report him to the police when he be abusive next to you? If so, that is evidence that you tried to put a stop to it, to prevent others from going through equal thing. But even if you didn't, it still isn't any of your business who he is surrounded by a relationship with, and how he conducts that relationship. He is to blame for the wounding behavior. It's a shame that she is playing the blame game and pointing her finger at everybody but him. He is the one she should be pressing charges against, not you.
Try speaking to a legally recognized advisor (sometimes you can just achieve a general opinion for free over the phone or over the net, whether or not this personage would have a case), and start building up your evidence immediately, just contained by case it does bear a turn for the worse. But as you were both victims, it is enormously doubtful that a court would want to punish you for something he has inflicted on both of you.
Take fastidiousness and good luck!
No, she cannot sue you. Just thank you lucky stars you get out when you did.
A nickel.to avoid a DUI?
i wouldnt do this... ahem... but is it true you can avoid getting a DUI by sucking on a nickel before you capture behind the helm?and can i get within trouble just by asking this request for information? LOL
Answers: Yep, Mythbusters!! Great show. No, there is no approach to beat the machines.
Although a friend I know did find out of the car, turn stale the ignition, and chug a beer in front of the cop. Don't know what devout it did, but its funny (and stupid)
No, it doesn't work. There was a show phone MythBusters on TV last hours of darkness, and nothing they used to try to give a hiding the breathilizer test worked (not mouthwash, not coins, not gum, nought.)
You'll just enjoy to designate a driver!!
It does not work. If you are drunk it will show on the
breathilizer no matter what. Do not bring behind the pedals you might just snuff somone or yoursel..I do not understand why calling a hackney cab is so difficult.
NO
&
NO
No but save the nickel. Then when you acquire busted you only requirement $12999.95 more. $5000 for fines, lawyer, alchohol awareness class and adjectives that sort of thing. $300 to filch taxis or the bus for a couple of months. $100 for license reinstatement. And $8600 for increased insurance for the subsequent 3 years.
Darn, I knew that I should hold taken a cab.
Nope - it's a blood chemistry article - no way to spoof it. Not lacking a blood transfusion.
More Questions and Answers:
[205] - [77] - [1684] - [1354] - [1140] - [732] - [1188] - [1012] - [833] - [1157] - [11] - [1804] - [1286] - [39] - [1371] - [1184] - [1210] - [1901] - [472] - [1269]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: